IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Morphological characterization of different
Morphophysiological analyses on Teak (Tectona provenances of Teak (Tectona grandis L.)
C A Prasetyawati and N A’ida
grandis Linn. f.) from three provenances - A genetic diversity on Jabon Merah
(Anthocephalus macrophyllus Roxb.) from
three different provenances in South
To cite this article: S H Larekeng et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 235 012048 Sulawesi
A Arif, S H Larekeng, M Restu et al.

- Sublethal effect of physic nut wangi variety

oil (Jatropha curcas L.) on Helicoverpa
armigera Hubner
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Heri Prabowo

Recent citations
- Correlations among Tree Quality, Stand
Characteristics, and Site Characteristics in
Plantation Teak in Mountainous Areas of
Lao PDR
Simone Vongkhamho et al

This content was downloaded from IP address 114.124.181.127 on 21/10/2021 at 08:44

GIESED 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235 (2019) 012048 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012048

Morphophysiological analyses on Teak (Tectona grandis Linn.

f.) from three provenances

S H Larekeng1, Gusmiaty1, M Restu1, M A Arsyad1, and R Dermawan2

1
Biotechnology and Tree Breeding Lab., Faculty of Forestry, Hasanuddin University,
Makassar, Indonesia
2
Department of Agrotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, Hasanuddin University,
Makassar, Indonesia

E-mail: sitih5h.82@gmail.com

Abstract. High genetic diversity in teak species causes problems in identifying the individuals.
To identify the characteristics of the individuals, an identification system using
morphophysiological analyses for Teak is needed. This study was aimed to identify the
morphological and physiological differences between three different teak provenances, i.e.,
Cepu, Sidrap, and Bau-bau provenances. The research was carried out by observing
morphological characteristics, i.e., leaf characteristics (color, shape, venation pattern, margin,
base, tip, and surface texture) and tree characteristics (height and diameter), and physiological
characteristics (leaf area, chlorophyll content, and leaf water content). There were five leaf colors
observed in the analysis (green- brownish, green-yellowish, green, dark green, and green with
yellow spots). Leaf shapes were divided into two shape types, i.e., widened ellipse and inverted
oval. Flat leaf margin, tapered leaf tip, and base, rough surface texture, pinnate venation pattern
were observed on all evaluated leaves. Height and diameter of trees were higher in Bau-bau
provenance than other provenances. Leaf area was affected by provenance but not leaf position
in provenance. Chlorophyll content was affected by both provenance and leaf position, whereas
water content was only affected by leaf position in provenance.

1. Introduction
Teak has a significant contribution in supplying raw wood materials. It has not only high wood quality
and economic value but also superior characteristics that already well known. Due to producing durable
and strong wood quality, many parties (government, private sectors, community, and industry) have
been cultivating this species [1]
Hundreds of teak species that having various traits (superior and inferior) have been distributed in
Indonesians’ regions. The high number of teak species becomes the restriction in distinguishing among
teak individuals. For identifying each teak genotype, both skill and experience are needed. Therefore,
an identification method for teak needs to be developed. Stem, leaf, fruit, and flower are commonly used
for morphological identification [2], while physiological identification uses chlorophyll content, the
conductivity of stomata, the diameter of the stem, plant height, and number of leaves [3]
The phenotype is a character (structural, biochemical, physiological or behavioral character) that can
be observed on an organism that controlled by genotype, environment, and interaction between them.
The definition of phenotype encompasses a number of phases in gene expression of an organism. In the
organism level, the phenotype is determined by genotype and environment and widely known in the

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
GIESED 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235 (2019) 012048 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012048

form of P = G + E. Phenotypic observation can be applied with only a simple observation (such as,
flower color) up to complex observation that requires specific method and tools. Nonetheless, as gene
expression of a genotype is gradual from molecular to individual levels, the correlation between
phenotypes often detects in the different phases. Phenotype, particularly quantitative trait, is controlled
by multiple genes [4]
Very high genetic diversity was previously reported in Teak (Tectona grandis Linn. f.) stands from
different provenances in Southeast Sulawesi that collected from genetic resource area of Sulawesi BPTH
based on Microsatellite marker [5] Equivalent to that finding, she assumed that in those populations the
diversity of phenotype was also high. The correlation between high genetic diversity and phenotype of
teak has not been previously studied, though, it is crucial for teak breeding strategy.
This study was aimed to identify the morphological and physiological characteristics of teak from East
Java (Cepu), South Sulawesi (Sidrap), and Southeast Sulawesi (Bau-bau). Such information would be
beneficial to complement the genetic data owned by Sulawesi BPTH for developing the genetic resource
area of Sulawesi BPTH.

2. Material and Method

Plant materials were randomly collected with 30 repeat units from three different teak provenances, i.e.,
East Java (Cepu), South Sulawesi (Sidrap), and Southeast Sulawesi (Bau-bau) at genetic resource area
of Sulawesi Forest Seed/Seedling office (BPTH), Gowa district, South Sulawesi, Indonesia. Some tools
that used to facilitate the sample collection were GPS, laser distance meter (LDM), tape measure,
chlorophyll meter (SPAD 502), envelope, marker, label, newsprint, cardboard, stick, oven, digital
weight scale, millimeter block paper, characteristic table, tally sheet, and stationery.

2.1. Sample collection

The samples that used in the experiment were leaves from teak progeny populations. Thirty individuals
were randomly selected from each provenance, and a total of observed individuals was 90
individuals/samples. Three leaves from each were cut at top, middle, and base of the tree using a scissor
and stored them in the envelope with provenance code on it.

2.2. Morphophysiological observation

Bromophenol The morphological (leaf and stem) characters observed on the evaluated teak individuals
were leaf color, leaf shape, leaf tip, leaf middle, leaf base, leaf margin, leaf surface texture, leaf
venation, and tree height and diameter. The physiological observations included leaf area, chlorophyll
content, and leaf water content.
Leaf area was measured using a gravimetric method by drawing a leaf sample on millimeter block
paper. The paper must be larger than the measured leaf, and the measurement was conducted by count
the block number inside the drawing.
Leaf chlorophyll was calculated using chlorophyll meter (SPAD-502). The measurement was carried
out on a leaf from three leaf positions (top, middle, and base on the tree) without touching the midrib
and then calculated the mean of the data. Leaf chlorophyll was counted using formula, Y = 0.0007x –
0.0059, where Y= chlorophyll content and x= data measured by chlorophyll meter Water content
analysis was conducted using oven method (SNI 01-2891-1992 point 5). Leaf was weighted for
determining the wet weight and then dried it using the oven at 60oC for 48 hours. Leaf was then weighted
for measuring the dry weight. Water content was calculated using formula, water content (%) = ((wet
weight – dry weight) / wet weight) x 100%.

2.3. Data analysis

Qualitative parameters (leaf color, leaf shape, leaf tip, leaf middle, leaf base, leaf margin, leaf surface
texture, and leaf venation) were analyzed using the descriptive method, whilst, quantitative parameters
(tree height and diameter) was performed using a single factor of Complete Randomized Design (CRD)
consisting three treatments (East Java (Cepu), South Sulawesi (Sidrap), and Southeast Sulawesi (Bau-

2
GIESED 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235 (2019) 012048 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012048

bau) provenances) with 30 replications. Meanwhile, Leaf area, Leaf chlorophyll, and water content were
in Complete Randomized Design (CRD) with Nested pattern consisted of two factors with 30
replications. The first factor was provenances and the second one was leaf position at the tree (top,
middle, and base). Quantitative data were analyzed using F test and followed by post-hoc HSD
(Honestly Significant Difference) (when F test p-value < 0.05). Data were analyzed using R statistics
(R core team).

3. Results

3.1. Leaf color and shape

Leaf colors showed on the evaluated provenances were green-brownish, green-yellowish, green, dark
green, and green with yellow spots. Leaf shapes were divided into two, widened ellipse and inverted
oval (table 1 and 2).

Table 1. Leaf color of teak from East Java (Cepu), South Sulawesi (Sidrap), and Southeast Sulawesi
(Bau-bau) provenances
No. Provenance Location Leaf color Code of tree
Green-
P27, P28, P29, P30
brownish
Green-
P6, P8, P13, P20
Top yellowish
P2, P4, P7, P9, P10, P11, P12, P14, P15, P16,
Green
P17, P18, P21, P22, P23, P24, P25, P26
Dark green P1, P3, P5, P19
East Java P2, P6, P7, P8, P10, P12, P13, P14, P16, P17,
1 Green
(Cepu) P20, P22, P23, P24, P26, P27, P28, P29, P30
Middle Dark green P1, P3, P5, P19
Green with
P4, P9, P11, P15, P18, P21, P25
yellow spots
Green P2, P8, P12, P14, P22, P26, P27
Base Dark green P1, P3, P5, P13, P16, P17, P19, P28, P29, P30
Green with P4, P6, P7, P9, P10, P11, P15, P18, P20, P21,
yellow spots P23, P24, P25
Green-
P26, P27, P28 P29, P30
brownish
Green-
P17, P23, P24
yellowish
Top P1, P8, P9, P10, P11, P12, P13, P15, P16, P18,
Green
P19, P20, P22, P25
Dark green P4, P5, P6, P14, P21
South
Green with
2 Sulawesi P2, P3, P7
yellow spots
(Sidrap)
Green-
P7, P26, P29, P30
yellowish
Green P1, P2, P8, P16, P24, P27, P28
Middle P4, P6, P9, P12, P13, P15, P18, P19, P21, P22,
Dark green
P25
Green with
P3, P5, P10, P11, P14, P17, P20, P23
yellow spots

3
GIESED 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235 (2019) 012048 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012048

Green-
P7
yellowish
Green P2, P16, P24, P26
Base
Dark green P3, P8, P13, P19, P21, P22, P27, P28, P29
Green with P1, P4, P5, P6, P9, P10, P11, P12, P14, P15,
yellow spots P17, P20, P23, P25
Green-
P24, P26, P29, P30
brownish
Green-
P1, P14, P16, P19, P22, P27
Top yellowish
P6, P7, P9, P10, P11, P13, P15, P17, P18, P20,
Green
P21, P23, P25, P28
Dark green P2, P3, P4, P5, P8, P12
Green-
Southeast P22, P27
yellowish
3 Sulawesi
(Bau-bau) P1, P7, P10, P16, P17, P18, P19, P21, P25,
Middle Green
P26, P28, P29, P30
Dark green P2, P3, P4, P8, P12
Greem with
P5, P6, P9, P11, P13, P14, P15, P20, P23, P24
yellow spots
Green P26, P27, P28 P29, P30
Base P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P9, P10, P11,
Green with
P12, P13, P14, P15, P16, P17, P18, P19, P20,
yellow spots
P21, P22, P23, P24, P25

Table 1 presents most of the leaf color from Cepu, Sidrap, and Bau-bau at the top of the tree were
green, it was shown on 18, 14, and 14 leaves of 30 observed leaves, respectively. Stated young leaf color
of teak was green-brownish. In contrast to [6], this study observed that leaf color at the top was green
as the collected leaves were not from the tip of the tree crown but at the 21st leaf from the tree base.
Leaves color from Cepu and Bau-bau located at the middle of the tree were green, 19 and 13 of 30
leaves, respectively. Whereas that of from Sidrap was dark green (11 leaves). These were similar to a
previous study [7] that described green as teaks’ leaf color.
Most of the leaves that located at the base of the tree from Cepu, Sidrap, and Bau-bau provenances
were green with yellow spots (13, 14, and 25 leaves of 30 leaves, respectively). Contrary to [6] study,
he informed that the color of adult teaks’ leaves was green-greyish. Here, the observed trees already
shed their leaves that located at the tree base, and thus it was followed by color changing on the leaf.
Water supply is vital in the photosynthesis process. Decreasing water supply will restrict photosynthesis,
and consequently, the water keeps evaporating and reduces chlorophyll content in the leaf. Later, the
leaf color was changed to yellow-brownish and eventually shed [8].
Younger leaves have greener color than the older ones. It is linked to nutrients which distributed to
the leaf. Older leaf tends to receive more nutrients, as consequently having more chlorophyll and darker
color than the younger ones [8]. A variation on leaf color indicates a variety of pigment types composed
in the leaf. Chlorophyll in the young leaf is in the form of protochlorophyll, and its color changes after
protochlorophyll transformation [9].

4
GIESED 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235 (2019) 012048 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012048

Table 2. Leaf shape of teak from East Java (Cepu), South Sulawesi (Sidrap), and Southeast Sulawesi
(Bau-bau) provenances
Leaf
No Provenance Location Figure Code of tree
shape
Top
East Java Middle Widened
1 P1-P30
(Cepu) Ellipse
Base
South Top
Widened
2 Sulawesi Middle P1-P30
Ellipse
(Sidrap) Base
Top P1, P2, P3, P9, P10, P11,
Middle Widened P12, P13, P14, P15, P17,
Ellipse P18, P19, P20, P21, P22,
Southeast Base P23, P25, P30
3 Sulawesi
Top
(Bau-bau)
Middle Inverted P4, P5, P6, P7, P8, P16,
oval P24, P26, P27, P28, P29
Base

Table 2 depicts that leaf shape on all samples from Cepu and Sidrap provenances located at the top,
middle, and base of the evaluated trees were widened ellipse, whereas that of from Bau-bau provenance
was divided into two groups, widened ellipse (18 trees) and inverted oval (12 trees). These results were
supported by Dahana and [10] who stated leaf of teak has either widened ellipse or inverted oval. The
variation in leaf shape from Bau-bau provenance is assumed due to the unexpected mixing in plant
materials (with other provenances) during planting

3.2. Leaf tip, base, margin, surface texture, and leaf venation
Leaf tip, base, margin, surface texture and venation in all samples on the three provenances at different
collecting sample location showed the same morphological characters.
Table 3. Tip, base, margin, surface texture, and leaf venation of teak from East Java (Cepu), South
Sulawesi (Sidrap), and Southeast Sulawesi (Bau-bau)
Leaf
Leaf Leaf surface Leaf Code of
No Provenance Leaf tip Figure
base margin texture venation tree

East Java
1 Tapered Tapered Flat Rough Pinnate P1-P30
(Cepu)

South
2 Sulawesi Tapered Tapered Flat Rough Pinnate P1-P30
(Sidrap)

Southeast
3 Sulawesi Tapered Tapered Flat Rough Pinnate P1-P30
(Bau-bau)

5
GIESED 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235 (2019) 012048 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012048

Table 3 describes leaf tip and base from all provenances at top, middle, and base of the trees had a
tapered tip and base and flat margin. These descriptions were identic [11], [12] who reported that leaf
of teak has a tapered tip and base and flat at the leaf margin.
All leaf samples in the evaluated provenances had rough surface texture and pinnate venation. These
were supported [12]. They stated that teaks’ leaf has pinnate venation and rough surface texture.

3.3. Tree height

Anova of tree height presented that provenance did not affect tree height (Table 4).
Table 4. Anova of tree height
Treatment Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Value Pr(>F)
Provenance 2 12.207 6.1034 3.0512 0.0524
Residuals 87 174.031 2.0004
Number of tree

Height Class

Figure 1. Frequency distribution of tree height in East Java (Cepu) provenance

Number of tree

Height Class

Figure 2. Frequency distribution of tree height in South Sulawesi (Sidrap) provenance

Number of tree

Height Class

Figure 3. Frequency distribution of tree height in Southeast Sulawesi (Bau-bau) provenance

6
GIESED 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235 (2019) 012048 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012048

Figure 1-3 shows the frequency distributions of the tree height. The highest frequency of tree height
in Cepu provenance was 2.3 - 4.4 which was the lowest level in the distribution class. While, the highest
frequency in Sidrap and Bau-bau provenance were in the class of 4.1 – 5.8 and 3.9 – 4.7, respectively,
where both were the moderate class of tree height. Bau-bau provenance had a higher height than other
provenances that could be seen by having more individuals number in the higher class.

3.4. Tree diameter

The analysis of variant on tree diameter showed provenance significantly affected tree diameter (table
5).
Table 5. Anova of tree diameter
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Value Pr(>F)
Provenance 2 60.209 30.1043 18.459 2.079e-07 ***
Residuals 87 141.887 1.6309
Notes: (*) significant at p value < 0.05

Table 6. HSD test of tree diameter

Diff lwr upr p adj
Cepu-Baubau -1.72666667 -2.5129158 -0.9404176 0.0000033
Sidrap-Baubau 0.01666667 -0.7695824 0.8029158 0.9985925
Sidrap-Cepu 1.74333333 0.9570842 2.5295824 0.0000027
Notes: (*) significant at p value < 0.05
Table 6 presents that in tree diameter, Cepu provenance differed from Sidrap and Cepu provenance
but Sidrap provenance did not differ from Bau-bau. Variation in diameter growth was influenced by
genetic and environment. There are three factors that affect diameter growth, i.e. soil nutrient content,
soil humidity, and sunlight [13]. Moreover, the genetic factor is traits that are inheritably controlled so
it could not be easily changed in a certain condition of environment. The unchangeable genetical traits
are tree morphology, growing speed of tree (fast growing or slow growing species), wood color, etc [14]
One of environment factor influenced in tree diameter is the quality of growing environment.
According to [15] growing environment affects variation in wood growth and formation. A good
environment will produce trees with rapid growth, and vise versa, due to deficiency of nutrient and low
moisture level.

3.5 Leaf area

Analysis of leaf area showed that leaf area was significantly affected by provenance (table 7).
Table 7. Anova of leaf area
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Value Pr(>F)
Provenance 2 269729 134865 4.124 0.0172 *
Provenance
6 337859 56310 1.722 0.116
(location)
Residuals 261 8534945 32701
Notes: (*) significant at p-value < 0.05.

7
GIESED 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235 (2019) 012048 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012048

Table 8. HSD test of leaf area on provenances

diff lwr upr p adj
Cepu-Baubau 45.51556 -18.02684 109.05795 0.2115324
Sidrap-Baubau -31.48 -95.02239 32.06239 0.4735142
Sidrap-Cepu -76.99556 -140.53795 -13.45316 0.0128241
Notes: (*) significant at p-value < 0.05
Leaf area between Sidrap and Cepu provenances significantly differed (table 8). It was due to genetic
and environmental factors. Environmental factor, such as topography, ecological condition, climate, and
land fertility, can influence the physiology of plant [6]. [5] added genetic diversity of teak progeny
populations in genetic resource area of Sulawesi BPTH was high. It indicated variation in leaf area
between provenances (particularly Sidrap and Cepu) was also high.

3.6 Chlorophyll content

Table 9. Anova of chlorophyll content
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Value Pr(>F)
Provenance 2 0.000182 9.09E-05 5.058 0.006994 **
Provenance 0.000164
6 0.000502 8.36E-05 4.652
(location) ***
Residuals 261 0.004691 1.80E-05
Notes: (**) and (***) significant at p-value < 0.05
Table 10. HSD test of chlorophyll content on provenances
Diff lwr upr p adj
Cepu-Baubau 0.001506667 1.71E-05 0.002996282 0.0467368
Sidrap-Baubau -0.000398889 -1.89E-03 0.001090726 0.8030904
Sidrap-Cepu -0.001905556 -3.40E-03 -0.00041594 0.0079134
Notes: (**) and (***) significant at p-value < 0.05
Table 11. HSD test of chlorophyll content on location in provenances
diff lwr upr p adj
cepu:Base-baubau:Base 0.0039400 0.0005161 0.0073639 0.0112733
sidrap:Base-baubau:Base 0.0007467 -0.0026772 0.0041705 0.9989707
baubau:Middle-baubau:Base 0.0017367 -0.0016872 0.0051605 0.8114331
cepu:Middle-baubau:Base 0.0022367 -0.0011872 0.0056605 0.5145709
sidrap:Middle-baubau:Base 0.0014700 -0.0019539 0.0048939 0.9173122
baubau:Top-baubau:Base -0.0001933 -0.0036172 0.0032305 1.0000000
cepu:Top-baubau:Base -0.0001133 -0.0035372 0.0033105 1.0000000
sidrap:Top-baubau:Base -0.0018700 -0.0052939 0.0015539 0.7409535
sidrap:Base-cepu:Base -0.0031933 -0.0066172 0.0002305 0.0892834
baubau:Middle-cepu:Base -0.0022033 -0.0056272 0.0012205 0.5357459
cepu:Middle-cepu:Base -0.0017033 -0.0051272 0.0017205 0.8273831
sidrap:Middle-cepu:Base -0.0024700 -0.0058939 0.0009539 0.3726380
baubau:Top-cepu:Base -0.0041333 -0.0075572 -0.0007095 0.0060599
cepu:Top-cepu:Base -0.0040533 -0.0074772 -0.0006295 0.0078655
sidrap:Top-cepu:Base -0.0058100 -0.0092339 -0.0023861 0.0000084

8
GIESED 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235 (2019) 012048 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012048

baubau:Middle-sidrap:Base 0.0009900 -0.0024339 0.0044139 0.9925879

cepu:Middle-sidrap:Base 0.0014900 -0.0019339 0.0049139 0.9111443
sidrap:Middle-sidrap:Base 0.0007233 -0.0027005 0.0041472 0.9991828
baubau:Top-sidrap:Base -0.0009400 -0.0043639 0.0024839 0.9947807
cepu:Top-sidrap:Base -0.0008600 -0.0042839 0.0025639 0.9971799
sidrap:Top-sidrap:Base -0.0026167 -0.0060405 0.0008072 0.2935385
cepu:Middle-baubau:Middle 0.0005000 -0.0029239 0.0039239 0.9999486
sidrap:Middle-
-0.0002667 -0.0036905 0.0031572 0.9999996
baubau:Middle
baubau:Top-baubau:Middle -0.0019300 -0.0053539 0.0014939 0.7062757
cepu:Top-baubau:Middle -0.0018500 -0.0052739 0.0015739 0.7521442
sidrap:Top-baubau:Middle -0.0036067 -0.0070305 -0.0001828 0.0303747
sidrap:Middle-cepu:Middle -0.0007667 -0.0041905 0.0026572 0.9987541
baubau:Top-cepu:Middle -0.0024300 -0.0058539 0.0009939 0.3958084
cepu:Top-cepu:Middle -0.0023500 -0.0057739 0.0010739 0.4438085
sidrap:Top-cepu:Middle -0.0041067 -0.0075305 -0.0006828 0.0066143
baubau:Top-sidrap:Middle -0.0016633 -0.0050872 0.0017605 0.8455460
cepu:Top-sidrap:Middle -0.0015833 -0.0050072 0.0018405 0.8785193
sidrap:Top-sidrap:Middle -0.0033400 -0.0067639 0.0000839 0.0621394
cepu:Top-baubau:Top 0.0000800 -0.0033439 0.0035039 1.0000000
sidrap:Top-baubau:Top -0.0016767 -0.0051005 0.0017472 0.8396128
sidrap:Top-cepu:Top -0.0017567 -0.0051805 0.0016672 0.8015215

Chlorophyll content in evaluated leaves was affected by provenance and location in provenance
(table 9). According to [16] chlorophyll content can be measured by greenness level of the leaf: the
greener of a leaf, the higher chlorophyll content in it. Observation on leaf collecting location depicted
that leaves at the base of the tree had higher chlorophyll content that other locations as consequently the
chlorophyll content was indeed affected by provenance and location in provenance. The post-hoc test
also showed chlorophyll content from Cepu provenance differed from Sidrap and Bau-bau provenance.
Whereas, that of from Sidrap provenance did not differ from Bau-bau provenance. The previous study
[5] in the same populations stated the high genetic diversity could influence chlorophyll content
containing in leaves so that the chlorophyll contents were different between provenances.

3.7 Water Content

The analysis on water content showed it was not affected by provenance, but by leaf collecting position
in provenance (table 12). Post-hoc HSD test is presented in table 13.
Table 12. Anova of leaf water content
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F Value Pr(>F)
Provenance 2 0.068 3.38E-02 2.786 0.0635.
Provenance
6 1.691 2.82E-01 23.235 <2e-16 ***
(location)
Residuals 261 0.004691 1.80E-05
Notes: (**) and (***) significant at p-value < 0.05

9
GIESED 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235 (2019) 012048 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012048

Table 13. HSD test of water content

diff lwr upr p adj
cepu:Base-baubau:Base 0.1170000 0.0280411 0.2059589 0.0016942
sidrap:Base-baubau:Base -0.0086667 -0.0976255 0.0802922 0.9999978
baubau:Middle-baubau:Base 0.1023333 0.0133745 0.1912922 0.0113221
cepu:Middle-baubau:Base 0.1010000 0.0120411 0.1899589 0.0132757
sidrap:Middle-baubau:Base 0.1050000 0.0160411 0.1939589 0.0081775
baubau:Top-baubau:Base 0.1916667 0.1027078 0.2806255 0.0000000
cepu:Top-baubau:Base 0.1920000 0.1030411 0.2809589 0.0000000
sidrap:Top-baubau:Base 0.2486667 0.1597078 0.3376255 0.0000000
sidrap:Base-cepu:Base -0.1256667 -0.2146255 -0.0367078 0.0004895
baubau:Middle-cepu:Base -0.0146667 -0.1036255 0.0742922 0.9998707
cepu:Middle-cepu:Base -0.0160000 -0.1049589 0.0729589 0.9997512
sidrap:Middle-cepu:Base -0.0120000 -0.1009589 0.0769589 0.9999721
baubau:Top-cepu:Base 0.0746667 -0.0142922 0.1636255 0.1811774
cepu:Top-cepu:Base 0.0750000 -0.0139589 0.1639589 0.1764997
sidrap:Top-cepu:Base 0.1316667 0.0427078 0.2206255 0.0001976
baubau:Middle-sidrap:Base 0.1110000 0.0220411 0.1999589 0.0038047
cepu:Middle-sidrap:Base 0.1096667 0.0207078 0.1986255 0.0045273
sidrap:Middle-sidrap:Base 0.1136667 0.0247078 0.2026255 0.0026696
baubau:Top-sidrap:Base 0.2003333 0.1113745 0.2892922 0.0000000
cepu:Top-sidrap:Base 0.2006667 0.1117078 0.2896255 0.0000000
sidrap:Top-sidrap:Base 0.2573333 0.1683745 0.3462922 0.0000000
cepu:Middle-baubau:Middle -0.0013333 -0.0902922 0.0876255 1.0000000
sidrap:Middle-baubau:Middle 0.0026667 -0.0862922 0.0916255 1.0000000
baubau:Top-baubau:Middle 0.0893333 0.0003745 0.1782922 0.0481317
cepu:Top-baubau:Middle 0.0896667 0.0007078 0.1786255 0.0465192
sidrap:Top-baubau:Middle 0.1463333 0.0573745 0.2352922 0.0000184
sidrap:Middle-cepu:Middle 0.0040000 -0.0849589 0.0929589 1.0000000
baubau:Top-cepu:Middle 0.0906667 0.0017078 0.1796255 0.0419569
cepu:Top-cepu:Middle 0.0910000 0.0020411 0.1799589 0.0405245
sidrap:Top-cepu:Middle 0.1476667 0.0587078 0.2366255 0.0000147
baubau:Top-sidrap:Middle 0.0866667 -0.0022922 0.1756255 0.0628334
cepu:Top-sidrap:Middle 0.0870000 -0.0019589 0.1759589 0.0608105
sidrap:Top-sidrap:Middle 0.1436667 0.0547078 0.2326255 0.0000288
cepu:Top-baubau:Top 0.0003333 -0.0886255 0.0892922 1.0000000
sidrap:Top-baubau:Top 0.0570000 -0.0319589 0.1459589 0.5418012
sidrap:Top-cepu:Top 0.0566667 -0.0322922 0.1456255 0.5499762
Notes: (**) and (***) significant at p-value < 0.05
Increasing age in the plant will lead to decreasing optimal condition even death of the organ or
organism. The final development until losing the function of the cell is defined by maturation.
Maturation is experienced by all cells at different time. [16] declared leaf age can be used to determine
water content in the leaf. Teak’s leaf at base of the tree is older than at the top. Those leaves begin to

10
GIESED 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235 (2019) 012048 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012048

reduce chlorophyll production and nutrient distribution, and eventually only carotenoid and anthocyanin
left. This situation will induce color-changing on leaves to orange, yellow-reddish, or purple. Leaves
located at base of the tree will be shed thus the leaf weight becomes lighter and affects the water content.

4. Discussion
Morphological analysis in Cepu, Sidrap, and Bau-bau provenances on leaf color were divided into five,
green-brownish, green-yellowish, green, dark green, and green with yellow spots. Most of leaf shapes
were widened ellipse, except on some leaves in Bau-bau provenances that having inverted oval. All
observed leaf samples had flat margin, tapered tip and base, rough texture, and pinnate venation. Tree
height and diameter were higher in Bau-bau provenance than other provenances. Physiological analysis
on leaf area was affected by provenance but not by leaf collecting position. Chlorophyll content was
affected by both provenance and collecting position. Meanwhile, water content was not affected by
provenance, but by collecting position

5. Conclusion
1. Freshness indicator of mango fruit can be produced by utilizing bacterial cellulose from Acetobakter
xilinum which then soaked with bromophenol blue solution.
2. Profile of colour change on the freshness indicator of mango arummanis showed the change of colour
from dark blue indicating fresh fruit, light blue is firm and green colour indicates the fruit has been
rotten

References
[1] Pudjiono. 2014. Produksi Bibit Jati Unggul (Tectona grandis L.f.) Klon dan Budidayanya (Bogor:
Institut Pertanian Bogor Press) 45-46
[2] Asanurjaya, B. 2012. Identifikasi Tanaman Jati Menggunakan Probalistic Neural Network dengan
Ektraksi Fitur Ciri Morfologi Daun. Skripsi. (Bogor: Fakultas Matematika dan Ilmu
Pengetahuan Alam Institut Pertanian Bogor)
[3] Anggraeni, D. 2015. Karakter Fisiologis dan Agronomis Bibit Kakao (Theobroma cacao L.) yang
Berasosiasi dengan Synechococcus sp. pada Media dengan Berbagai Kadar Bahan Organik.
Skripsi (Jember: Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Jember)
[4] Aristya, G. R., dan B. S. Daryono. 2014. Karakter fenotipik tanaman stroberi Festival (Fragaria x
ananassa D.) hasil induksi kolkisin pada konsentrasi 0,05% dan 0,01%. J. Ilmiah Biol.
Biogen. 2 70-78
[5] Sifa, Z. A. 2017. Analisis Keragaman Genetik Anakan Jati (Tectona grandis Linn. f.) pada Berbagai
Provenansi di Sulawesi Tenggara Berdasarkan Penanda Mikrosatelit. Skripsi. (Makassar:
Fakultas Kehutanan Universitas Hasanuddin) 34-35
[6] Sumarna (2003) Sumarna, Y. 2003. Budidaya Jati (Jakarta: PT. Penebar Swadaya) 234-235
[7] Ahsana D., Hamidah, Soedarti T., CESA. 2011. Keanekaragaman Varietas Dan Hubungan
Kekerabatan Pada Tanaman Jati (Tectona grandis Linn.) Melalui Pendekatan Morfologi Di
Kebun Bibit Permanen Kecamatan Kedungpring Lamongan. Skripsi (Surabaya: Fakultas
Sains dan Teknologi Universitas Airlangga)
[8] Nurdin., Kusharto, C., Tanziha, I., Januwati, M. 2009. Kandungan Klorofil Berbagai Jenis Daun
Tanaman dan Cu-Turunan Klorofil Serta Karakteristik Fisiko-Kimianya. Gizi dan Pangan. 4
13-19.
[9] Sumenda, L., Rampe, H., Mantin, F. R. 2011. Analisis Kandungan Klorofil Daun Mangga
(Mangifera indica L.) pada Tingkat Perkembangan Daun yang Berbeda. Jurnal Bioslogos, 1
20 – 24.
[10] Dahana, K., dan Warisno, 2011. Investasi Prospektif dengan Mengebunkan Jati Unggul.
(Yogyakarta: Andi) 456-458
[11] Batara, M. S. E. 2005. Potensi Budidaya Jati. Jurnal-USU Repository. Fakultas Pertanian Program
Studi Kehutanan Universitas Sumatra Utara, Medan 89-91

11
GIESED 2018 IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 235 (2019) 012048 doi:10.1088/1755-1315/235/1/012048

[12] Kosasih, E. 2013. Produksi Bibit Berkualitas; Jati (Tectona grandis Linn. F.). (Sumedang: Balai
Perbenihan Tanaman Hutan Jawa dan Madura) 67-69
[13] Davis, L.S and K. N. Jhonson. 1987. Forest Management. (New York: Mc Graw-Hill Book
Company) 235-236
[14] Daniel T W, Helms J W, and Baker F S 1987. Prinsip-prinsip Silvikultur. (Yogyakarta: Gadjah
Mada University Press) 56-58
[15] Paembonan, S.A. 2012. Hutan Tanaman dan Serapan Karbon (Makassar: Masagena Press) 245-
246
[16] Umberto, Q 2000 Plant names: Common names, scientific names, eponyms, synonyms, and
etymology Vol. 1 (USA: CRC Press LLC.) p522

12